DOCSLIB.ORG

Survey of Ambient Air Pollution Health Risk Assessment Tools

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Survey of Ambient Air Pollution Health Risk Assessment Tools Risk Analysis DOI: 10.1111/risa.12540 Survey of Ambient Air Pollution Health Risk Assessment Tools Susan C. Anenberg,1,∗ Anna Belova,2 Jørgen Brandt,3 Neal Fann,4 Sue Greco,5 Sarath Guttikunda,6 Marie-Eve Heroux,7 Fintan Hurley,8 Michal Krzyzanowski,9 Sylvia Medina,10 Brian Miller,8 Kiran Pandey,11 Joachim Roos,12 and Rita Van Dingenen13 Designing air quality policies that improve public health can benefit from information about air pollution health risks and impacts, which include respiratory and cardiovascular diseases and premature death. Several computer-based tools help automate air pollution health im- pact assessments and are being used for a variety of contexts. Expanding information gath- ered for a May 2014 World Health Organization expert meeting, we survey 12 multinational air pollution health impact assessment tools, categorize them according to key technical and operational characteristics, and identify limitations and challenges. Key characteristics in- clude spatial resolution, pollutants and health effect outcomes evaluated, and method for characterizing population exposure, as well as tool format, accessibility, complexity, and de- gree of peer review and application in policy contexts. While many of the tools use com- mon data sources for concentration-response associations, population, and baseline mortality rates, they vary in the exposure information source, format, and degree of technical complex- ity. We find that there is an important tradeoff between technical refinement and accessibility for a broad range of applications. Analysts should apply tools that provide the appropriate geographic scope, resolution, and maximum degree of technical rigor for the intended assess- ment, within resources constraints. A systematic intercomparison of the tools’ inputs, assump- tions, calculations, and results would be helpful to determine the appropriateness of each for different types of assessment. Future work would benefit from accounting for multiple un- certainty sources and integrating ambient air pollution health impact assessment tools with those addressing other related health risks (e.g., smoking, indoor pollution, climate change, vehicle accidents, physical activity). KEY WORDS: Air pollution; health impact assessment tools; mortality; ozone; particulate matter 1Environmental Health Analytics, LLC, Washington, DC, USA. 9Environmental Research Group, King’s College London, Lon- 2Abt Associates, Bethesda, MD, USA. don, UK. 3Department of Environmental Science, Aarhus University, 10French Institute for Public Health Surveillance, Saint Maurice, Roskilde, Denmark. France. 4U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 11The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA. NC, USA. 12Institute of Energy Economics and Rational Use of Energy, Uni- 5Public Health Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. versity Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany. 6Division of Atmospheric Sciences, Desert Research Institute, 13European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Institute Reno, NV, USA. for Environment and Sustainability (IES), Ispra VA, Italy. 7World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, Bonn, ∗Address correspondence to Susan Anenberg, Environmental Germany. Health Analytics, LLC, 3704 Ingomar St. NW, Washington, DC, 8Institute of Occupational Medicine, Edinburgh, UK. USA; [email protected]. 1 0272-4332/16/0100-0001$22.00/1 C 2016 Society for Risk Analysis 2 Anenberg et al. 1. INTRODUCTION concentration-response relationships from epidemi- ology studies in one location among a single popula- Decades of toxicological, clinical, and epidemi- tion at low concentrations only. The IER approach ological research demonstrate significant associa- was used by the Global Burden of Disease project to tions between exposure to ambient air pollution and calculate that approximately 3.2 million and 150,000 deleterious human health effects, including respira- premature deaths globally in 2010 were attributable tory disease, cardiovascular disease, and premature to ambient PM and ozone, respectively.(16) In addi- (1–4) 2.5 death. Air pollution is a mixture of components, tion, household air pollution was associated with an including fine particles (PM2.5), ground-level ozone estimated 4 million premature deaths globally in 2010 (O3), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and oxides of sulfur (approximately 0.5 million overlapping with the esti- (SOx). The health effects of individual air pollutants mated ambient particulate matter deaths), making it have been reviewed in detail to support the setting of the fourth worst health risk factor after high blood ambient air quality guidelines by the World Health pressure, smoking, and alcohol use. Ambient PM , (5) 2.5 Organization and national standards, such as the not including ambient ozone, was the seventh worst (6–9) U.S. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. health risk factor globally based on associated pre- For example, extensive reviews by the U.S. EPA con- mature deaths. clude that long-term exposure to PM2.5 is associated Driven by the extensive body of literature with premature death, heart attacks, irregular heart- demonstrating their health effects, ambient concen- beat, and respiratory symptoms such as aggravated trations of particulate matter and ozone are now (7) asthma and decreased lung function, that short- regulated in many countries. Setting these regu- term exposure to O3 is associated with respiratory ef- lations at levels sufficient to protect public health fects, cardiovascular effects, and premature all-cause typically makes use of a variety of technical inputs, mortality, and that long-term exposure to O3 is as- including estimates of the total population health sociated with respiratory effects, including some ev- burden posed by the pollutants at current concen- idence for association with premature respiratory trations as well as the health benefits of reducing air (8) mortality. Beyond individual pollutants, research is pollution levels. There are a number of variants to also increasingly demonstrating the health effects of these two inputs—for example, analysts may wish to air pollution mixtures, such as from biomass smoke understand the historical trend in the human health (10–12) or traffic. In addition, studies show that some burden of air pollution caused by a specific polluting areas have a confluence of health risks from multiple sector or experienced by a certain subpopulation pollutants, and therefore a multi-pollutant air quality such as children. Over the last decade, governmental, management approach may be efficient at mitigating intergovernmental, and nongovernmental entities (13,14) those risks. have invested in tools that are better able to meet While the majority of epidemiological research this growing demand for more specific and timely has been conducted in North America and Europe, information regarding health impacts associated with insofar as it is available, evidence suggests that the exposure to air pollutants. For example, the U.S. En- associations between air pollutants and health effects vironmental Protection Agency developed the Envi- (10) are relatively consistent around the world. How- ronmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program ever, as some studies indicate a leveling off of risk (BenMAP-CE) in part to help fulfill requirements by at high PM2.5 concentrations found in many devel- the Office of Management and Budget and the Clean oping countries, researchers have leveraged epidemi- Air Act to characterize the benefits and costs of U.S. ological studies of ambient PM2.5, typically higher air pollution regulations.(17,18) Other countries and levels of indoor air pollution in developing coun- intergovernmental organizations such as the World tries where solid fuel is used for cooking and home Health Organization and World Bank have invested heating, and very high particulate exposure levels in similar tools to quantify air-pollution-related from cigarette smoking to develop “integrated ex- health impacts for a variety of purposes.(19–21) (15) posure response” (IER) curves. Because the IER Health impact and health burden assessments curves were developed from concentration-response depend strongly on the evidence available from air data taken from around the world, among a vari- pollution epidemiology and exposure science. Re- ety of populations, and across a range of exposure cent advances in these two disciplines have enabled concentrations including high PM2.5 concentrations, health impact assessments to combine findings from they may be more broadly applicable globally than atmospheric science and epidemiology, allowing Survey of Ambient Air Pollution Health Risk Assessment Tools 3 analysts to quantify an increasing number of health ing health impacts, wherein epidemiology-derived outcomes in far greater detail than was previously concentration-response associations and population- possible. Over the last decades, air pollution epi- level exposure estimates are used to determine the demiology has characterized risks of certain health portion of cases of a particular health effect that may outcomes in a population exposed to a higher level of be attributable to air pollution in a particular time pe- air pollution relative to a population exposed to less riod. This method requires information about air pol- air pollution (“relative risk”). Many determinants lution concentration levels, the relationship between of health, including socioeconomic status and other concentrations and health outcomes (which could be risk factors
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Health Impact Assessment in Harris County, Texas ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
    East Aldine District’s Town Center Development: A Health Impact Assessment in Harris County, Texas ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was supported by a grant from the Health Impact Project, a collaboration of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and The Pew Charitable Trusts, with funding from the Episcopal Health Foundation. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Health Impact Project, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, The Pew Charitable Trusts, or the Episcopal Health Foundation. SPECIAL THANKS The authors would like to thank the following for their support and contributions to the HIA: Christy Lambright and the Harris County Community Services Department staff; Victor Caballero, Montserrat Encontra, Katharine Kuzmyak, Aman Narayan, Anna Wheless, and Manlin Yao for assisting with data collection and analysis; and James Llamas for aiding in the interpretations of the Traffic Impact Analysis conducted for the East Aldine District Town Center. PRINCIPAL AUTHORS HIA STAFF CONTRIBUTORS Patricia L. Cummings, MPH, PhD Victoria Adaramola, MBA Program Manager and Principal Investigator Public Health Associate, Centers for Disease Control Built Environment & Health Impact Assessment Unit and Prevention Environmental Public Health Division Built Environment & Health Impact Assessment Unit Harris County Public Health (HCPH) Environmental Public Health Division, HCPH Ellen Schwaller, MUEP Jocelyn Hwang, MPH Community Health & Design Coordinator Research Analyst Built Environment & Health Impact Assessment Unit Built Environment & Health Impact Assessment Unit Environmental Public Health Division, HCPH Environmental Public Health Division, HCPH Sarah Wesely, MPH Robert Martinez, BS Research Analyst Team Lead GIS Coordinator Built Environment & Health Impact Assessment Unit Built Environment & Health Impact Assessment Unit Environmental Public Health Division, HCPH Environmental Public Health Division, HCPH Laura E.
    [Show full text]
  • Health in Impact Assessments: Opportunities Not to Be Missed
    The WHO Regional HEALTH IN IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Office for Europe Opportunities not to be missed The World Health Organization (WHO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations created in 1948 with the primary responsibility for international health matters and public health. The WHO Regional Office for Europe is one of six regional offices throughout the world, each with its own programme geared to the particular health conditions of the Prospective impact assessment is a consolidated approach for countries it serves. pursuing foresight in policy and decision-making, systematically Member States deployed worldwide. There is consensus that, even in well developed impact assessments, human health is not always Albania Andorra covered adequately. Partly as a response, health impact Armenia assessment (HIA) has emerged and has been applied in several Austria Azerbaijan countries in Europe and beyond. Opinions about the merits of HIA Belarus separate from other forms of impact assessment differ. This Belgium Bosnia and Herzegovina publication aims to provide a detailed and balanced view on Bulgaria “health in impact assessments”. Five key types of impact Croatia Cyprus assessment, namely environmental impact assessment, strategic Czech Republic environmental assessment, social impact assessment, Denmark sustainability assessment, and HIA are presented, and four key Estonia Finland questions are discussed: How can the various assessments France contribute to promoting and protecting human health? How can Georgia Germany further integration of health support the various forms of impact Greece assessments? What forms of integration seem advisable? What Hungary Iceland priorities for further development? This analysis suggests that the Ireland potential of impact assessments to protect and promote health is Israel Italy underutilized, and represents a missed opportunity.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Impact Assessment of Air Pollution in the Eight Major Italian Cities
    EURO/02/5040650 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF AIR POLLUTION IN THE EIGHT MAJOR ITALIAN CITIES HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF AIR POLLUTION IN THE EIGHT MAJOR ITALIAN CITIES By MARCO MARTUZZI WHO European Centre for Environment and Health Rome Operational Division WHO Regional Office for Europe CLAUDIA GALASSI Regional Agency for Health, Bologna, Italy BART OSTRO Air Pollution Epidemiology Unit California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) FRANCESCO FORASTIERE Department of Epidemiology, Rome Health Authority, Rome, Italy ROBERTO BERTOLLINI WHO European Centre for Environment and Health Rome Operational Division WHO Regional Office for Europe ABSTRACT The report contains the health impact assessment of urban air pollution in the eight major Italian cities; it gives estimates of mortality, morbidity and numbers days of restricted activity associated with air pollution level. The report illustrates the methodology, discusses scientific uncertainty and implications for findings as well as for the need for further research. Due to the methodological discussion and to its practical application in quantifying health effects of air pollution exposure, the report is also recommended as a handbook for local health officers. The case study and methodological tools can support Member States in implementing and developing environmental health policies. The dissemination of the report, among health officers and local government officers in Europe will increase awareness of air pollution related health effects and
    [Show full text]
  • John Snow, Cholera and the Mystery of the Broad Street Pump PDF Book Well Written and Easy to Read, Despite of the Heavy Subject
    THE MEDICAL DETECTIVE: JOHN SNOW, CHOLERA AND THE MYSTERY OF THE BROAD STREET PUMP PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Sandra Hempel | 304 pages | 06 Aug 2007 | GRANTA BOOKS | 9781862079373 | English | London, United Kingdom The Medical Detective: John Snow, Cholera and the Mystery of the Broad Street Pump PDF Book Well written and easy to read, despite of the heavy subject. When people didb't believe the doctor who proposed the answer and suggested a way to stop the spread of such a deadly disease, I wanted to scream in frustration! He first published his theory in an essay, On the Mode of Communication of Cholera , [21] followed by a more detailed treatise in incorporating the results of his investigation of the role of the water supply in the Soho epidemic of Snow did not approach cholera from a scientific point of view. Sandra Hempel. John Snow. The city had widened the street and the cesspit was lost. He showed that homes supplied by the Southwark and Vauxhall Waterworks Company , which was taking water from sewage-polluted sections of the Thames , had a cholera rate fourteen times that of those supplied by Lambeth Waterworks Company , which obtained water from the upriver, cleaner Seething Wells. Sandra Hempel did a fantastic job with grabbing attention of the reader and her experience with journalism really shows itself in this book. He then repeated the procedure for the delivery of her daughter three years later. View 2 comments. Episode 6. The author did a wonderful job of keeping me interested in what could have been a fairly dry subject.
    [Show full text]
  • Use of Health Impact Assessment in the U.S. 27 Case Studies, 1999-2007
    Use of Health Impact Assessment in the U.S. 27 Case Studies, 1999–2007 Andrew L. Dannenberg, MD, MPH, Rajiv Bhatia, MD, MPH, Brian L. Cole, DrPH, Sarah K. Heaton, MPH, Jason D. Feldman, MPH, Candace D. Rutt, PhD Objectives: To document the growing use in the United States of health impact assessment (HIA) methods to help planners and others consider the health consequences of their decisions. Methods: Using multiple search strategies, 27 HIAs were identified that were completed in the U.S. during 1999 –2007. Key characteristics of each HIA were abstracted from published and unpublished sources. Results: Topics examined in these HIAs ranged from policies about living wages and after-school programs to projects about power plants and public transit. Most HIAs were funded by local health departments, foundations, or federal agencies. Concerns about health disparities were especially important in HIAs on housing, urban redevelopment, home energy subsidies, and wage policy. The use of quantitative and nonquantitative methods varied among HIAs. Most HIAs presented recommendations for policy or project changes to improve health. Impacts of the HIAs were infrequently documented. Conclusions: These completed HIAs are useful for helping conduct future HIAs and for training public health officials and others about HIAs. More work is needed to document the impact of HIAs and thereby increase their value in decision-making processes. (Am J Prev Med 2008;34(3):241–256) © 2008 American Journal of Preventive Medicine Introduction needed: (1) to increase awareness of their use across the country, (2) to document that HIAs are applicable he use of health impact assessment (HIA) has in U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Health in All Policies (Hiap): Frequently Asked Questions
    Health in All Policies (HiAP): Frequently Asked Questions 1. What is Health in All Policies (HiAP)? HiAP is a strategy to assist leaders and policymakers in integrating considerations of health, well-being, and equity during the development, implementation, and evaluation of policies and services. HiAP strategies are meant to ensure that all policies and services from all sectors have beneficial or neutral impacts on the determinants of health. 1 2. How does HiAP differ from health impact assessment (HIA)? HIA is a tool that local health departments and others can use to assess a single proposed decision and its potential impact on health. 2 HiAP is an approach that uses multiple strategies to systematize and integrate the governmental decision-making process across agencies so that health is considered.1 HIA is one tool that can be used as part of a larger array of tactics to address the determinants of health through HiAP. 3. What is the difference between HiAP and Healthy Public Policies? “Healthy public policies” is a precursor to HiAP that emerged in the 1980s to put health on policymakers’ agendas. Healthy public policies tended to focus on the process of policymaking and achieving incremental change. 1 HiAP is a paradigm shift of whole-of- government, horizontal health governance, where health becomes systemized as a standard part of the policy-formation process, and agencies are driven to integrate the policy formation process under a health lens. 1 4. What is the history of HiAP? Emerging in 2006, HiAP was a major theme during the Finnish Presidency of the EU with the aim of strengthening existing legislation that required ensuring human protection in the formation and implementation of policies.3 It sought to create large, horizontal systems change that changed how all of government functioned.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Impact Assessment: Evidence on Health
    Health Impact Assessment: evidence on health A guide to sources of evidence for policymakers carrying out Health Impact Assessment as part of Impact Assessment of government policy How to carry out good quality HIAs 3 Use HIA screening questions 3 Make it evidence-based 3 Look for positive health impacts 3 Think beyond the health service when considering health Health Impact Assessment: evidence on health A guide to sources of evidence for policymakers carrying out Health Impact Assessment as part of Impact Assessment of government policy Health Impact Assessment: evidence on health Authors: Nannerl Herriott, Colleen Williams, Erica Ison Publication date July 2010 Part of a series: Health Impact Assessment of Government Policy: A guide to carrying out a Health Impact Assessment of new policy as part of the Impact Assessment process Health Impact Assessment: Case studies from government departments Health Impact Assessment: A guide to quantifying health impacts of government policy Contents Introduction 2 1. Statisticsandepidemiologicaldata 3 2. Publishedreports,researchstudiesandgreyliterature 6 3. Qualitativeinformation,forexample,stakeholderexperienceandexpertopinion 13 4. Matrixofavailableevidence 15 1 Introduction The purpose of including Health Impact Assessment (HIA) in Impact Assessment of government policy is to ensure that all government departments are focused on achieving better health and wellbeing of communities, as an outcome of their policy initiatives and plans. Finding and appraising the available evidence is a necessary feature of a good Health Impact Assessment. There are many sources available from which to obtain this evidence. This guide does not seek to be comprehensive, but provides information and guidance on where to start. Consultation with a librarian/ information specialist before undertaking a literature search is also advised.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Impact Assessment Legislation in the States
    A brief from the Health Impact Project Feb 2015 Health Impact Assessment Legislation in the States Overview Health care consumes a large percentage of state budgets, and legislators are looking for ways to reduce those costs and improve the public’s health. One way to meet these goals is by identifying and addressing the health risks and benefits of public policy decisions made outside the health sector in areas such as transportation, housing, education, natural resources and energy, and the economy. Health impact assessments (HIAs) bring together public health expertise, scientific data, and stakeholder input to evaluate the potential health effects of proposed policy changes and to develop practical solutions that minimize risks and maximize health benefits. Government officials, academics, nongovernmental organizations, and industry have used this flexible, data- driven approach in communities across the country. HIAs can help state decision-makers and local communities craft smarter policies that protect the public’s health; facilitate collaboration between government agencies, health officials, and constituent groups; and streamline the way health concerns are integrated into policy decisions. According to the National Research Council, HIA is a promising tool to improve people’s health and decrease health care costs because of its “broad applicability, its focus on adverse and beneficial health effects, its ability to incorporate various types of evidence, and its emphasis on stakeholder participation.”1 The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) in consultation with the Health Impact Project, a collaboration of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and The Pew Charitable Trusts, recently examined states that are considering the use or aspects of HIAs.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Impact Assessment
    Health Impact Assessment (HIA) Health impact assessment (HIA) is commonly defined as “a combination of procedures, methods, and tools by which a policy, program, or project may be judged as to its potential effects on the health of a population, and the distribution of those effects within the population” (1999 Gothenburg consensus statement). HIA can be used to evaluate objectively the potential health effects of a project or policy before it is built or implemented. It can provide recommendations to increase positive health outcomes and minimize adverse health outcomes. A major benefit of the HIA process is that it brings public health issues to the attention of persons who make decisions about areas that fall outside of traditional public health arenas, such as transportation or land use. Major Steps The major steps in conducting an HIA include • screening (identify projects or policies for which an HIA would be useful), • scoping (identify which health effects to consider), • assessing risks and benefits (identify which people may be affected and how they may be affected), • developing recommendations (suggest changes to proposals to promote positive or mitigate adverse health effects), • reporting (present the results to decision-makers), and • evaluating (determine the affect of the HIA on the decision process). HIAs are similar in some ways to environmental impact assessments (EIAs), which are mandated processes that focus on environmental outcomes such as air and water quality. However, unlike EIAs, HIAs can be voluntary or regulatory processes that focus on health outcomes such as obesity, physical inactivity, asthma, injuries, and social equity. An HIA encompasses a heterogeneous array of qualitative and quantitative methods and tools.
    [Show full text]
  • Gothenburg Consensus Paper; Health Impact Assessment
    Gothenburg consensus paper December, 1999 Main concepts and suggested approach European ECHP Centre for Health Policy WHO Regional Office for Europe Brussels, 1999 Health Impact Assessment: main concepts and suggested approach Gothenburg consensus paper, December 1999 Purpose of the Gothenburg consensus paper Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is a rapidly developing activity. The present paper is the first in a series intended to create a common understanding of HIA. It clarifies some of the main concepts and suggests a feasible approach to carrying out HIA at all levels (international, national and local). It is aimed mainly at policymakers and provides a departure point for discussion, comments and suggestions for the further development of the HIA approach and its related tools. Why do we need to develop Health impact Assessment ? Social, economic and other policies in both the public and private sectors are so closely interrelated that proposed decisions in one sector may impact on the objectives of other sectors. In recognition of this, specific legal and administrative rules, procedures and methods have already been developed in many countries to assess the impacts of policies for example on the environment, employment, economic growth or competition, on cultural and social factors, or on ethnic groups and gender. The general objective of such assessments is to improve knowledge about the potential impact of a policy or programme, inform decision-makers and affected people, and facilitate adjustment of the proposed policy in order to mitigate the negative and maximize the positive impacts. Although policies in other sectors can have a considerable influence on health and the production or prevention of illness, disability or death, this has so far only been considered to a limited degree, mainly in relation to environmental and social impact assessments.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Impact Assessment Can Inform Planning to Promote Public Health Process Offers Opportunities for Collaboration Among Planners and Public Health Professionals
    A brief from the Health Impact Project and the American Planning Association Aug 2016 Health Impact Assessment Can Inform Planning to Promote Public Health Process offers opportunities for collaboration among planners and public health professionals Overview Land-use and community planning decisions can affect public health.1 This brief introduces planning directors and staff as well as policymakers to health impact assessment (HIA), a process that brings public health considerations into decision-making. It describes how HIAs can add value across a range of topics and summarizes the findings from a review of 134 planning-related HIAs conducted in the U.S. between 2004 and 2014. The Planning and Community Health Center of the American Planning Association (APA) led the review in consultation with the Health Impact Project, a collaboration of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and The Pew Charitable Trusts.2 Planning affects health The places where people live, work, and play influence many of the nation’s most pressing public health determinants—such as levels of income and education and exposure to violence—as well as health outcomes, including respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease, injury, and mental health.3 Planning professionals are in a unique position to promote public health through their work. For example, a jurisdiction’s land-development patterns and zoning policies can directly affect important health determinants, such as the availability and affordability of housing; the presence of pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods; the range of transportation options; levels of crime in a community; and access to education, employment, and other essential goods and services.4 Planners can help jurisdictions anticipate, design, and implement spaces where people live, work, and play in a manner that reduces air pollution, encourages physical activity, provides access to essential services, and preserves green space, all of which are important to health.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Health Impact Assessments in the U.S.: Current State-Of-Science, Best Practices, and Areas for Improvement
    EPA/600/R-13/354 December 2013 www.epa.gov/ord A Review of Health Impact Assessments in the U.S.: Current State-of-Science, Best Practices, and Areas for Improvement Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory EPA/600/R-13/354 December 2013 www.epa.gov/ord A Review of Health Impact Assessments in the U.S.: Current State-of-Science, Best Practices, and Areas for Improvement Justicia Rhodus1, Florence Fulk2, Bradley Autrey2, Shannon O’Shea3, Annette Roth2 1 CSS-Dynamac c/o U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cincinnati, OH 45268 2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Exposure Research Laboratory Cincinnati, OH 45268 3 Contractor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Exposure Research Laboratory Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 National Exposure Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cincinnati, OH 45268 Notice The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and Development funded and managed the research described here under contract EP-D-11-073 to Dynamac Corporation. It has been subjected to the Agency’s external and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Author Contributions and Acknowledgements J. Rhodus (HIA Review Lead) – developed and managed the HIA Review process (including review framework and database), reviewed HIAs, implemented the QA Review and corrective actions, compiled and managed the final review database, performed final quality check on review database, synthesized the results of the HIA Review, and authored this synthesis report. F. Fulk (Principal Investigator) – managed implementation of the HIA Review in the context of other related Agency research, provided input during conceptualization of the HIA Review process, reviewed HIAs, and reviewed this synthesis report.
    [Show full text]